Arguments and empirical evidence that god(s) exist

Can you give an example of an alternative method of knowledge-seeking, and of knowledge which has been obtained via that method?

Alun, there is one modern technique of research, which is based on intuition. Some even say this is a new direction, called "intuitive science" - this includes some forms of meditation on the topic, so some people may see it as a semi-idealistic approach. But it is not so, this is rather a method to switch the brain to a more efficient mode and solve the same problems not facing them and thinking on them, but in the "background", so the needed answer pops up by itself. It helps in various applied science tasks like process development, inventing smth etc. There is certainly no religions or God involved here, this is the work with own Sub-conscience but one still has to be a scientist for doing this. Basically using this method was reported already in 19th century, so it is not very new.

Alun

I personally have plenty of beliefs which are not justified scientifically. These include religious beliefs. However, I do not see how these beliefs can be meaningfully communicated to others, because they are not justifiable by any communicable method of knowledge-seeking. To that end, how communicable is the knowledge which you say you have?

Ugh? You are communicating them on this forum. Beliefs don`t have to be justified scientifically. Beliefs are communicated to others. You can write a book there are many meaningful ways to communicate your beliefs. I think you are confusing communicate with experience. You experience something that others have said they experience or didn`t experience, its only strong atheists that say its all down to the subconscious and say you are irrational or brainwashed. You could be a truth bearer in talking about your experiences or you could be misguided and hallucinating and bearing false witness. Depends how badly you want to sell the book. Some beliefs are personal and only for the select few and inner circle. (if you want a copy of my new book on how to do this, send me cash and cheques in advance

Marabod, intutions demand evidence as the presumptions of empiricism,naturalism, rationalism and skepticism require. Does this new way rest on evidence or on mere intuition?
Is this part of the other venues of knowing that John Haught claims that we naturalists beg the question against but which he himself rather begs the question for?

Faith cannot establish evidence or Alister Earl McGrath,notwithstanding, add certitude.

We natualists, rationalists and skeptics demand evidence rather as that avoids errors.
total posts 62 so, I should be able to make links!

Kapra,but all religious experience is people's own minds at work; to postulate the supernatural as the source thereof begs the question. Furthermore, as with clairvoyance, such exterior input violates physics.

So here I disagree with atheologian, Jonathon Harrison^ who maintains that we atheists would beg the question should we disregad Mother Mary's supernatural power.
Furthermore, those experiences so contradict each other! And despite, theologian John Hick, people cannot ultimatly find them all supporting the same reality!
This finding does not use the genetic fallacy in claiming that neurotics put forth these experiences. No, anyone can have them as John Persinger finds with his helmet.
Since such experiences can better people, and atheists also can have them, then why not have them, but interpreting only as natural phenomena?
This is my addition to the naturalist argument about such experiences.

Concepts actually exist, and constitute all we can ever know. GOD the Person, HEAVEN the Place, TRUTH the Thing. Spiricel portrays the THOUGHT CONSCIOUS MIND as a pliable lens, that, like a movie camera, is capable of maximum acute focus on a detailed recept thing, a more temperate clear focus on an animate concept Person, a minimum obtuse exposure of a narrative Place. We should, like movie makers, be constantly thinking alternatively from detailed concentration on minute things to living human beings existing in some environmental Space/Time, but the Thought Conscious Thinker, being itself the Universal Creator's current concentrated evolving focus of Spiritual/Mental earthly life, is a vulnerable mental toddler apt to become stuck in one or another state of mind, so that Atheists, fascinated by Truth, are incapable of mentally relaxing to any personification of Truth as God.

I think this thread is great, thus bringing forward. And I am impressed with OTavern and every other members logical responses.


Well I thought about posting a similar kind of kind thread but asking for something different, that is asking a slightly different but similar question but seeking to know about how the Scientist claim that there is no God. What is there theory and proof for that, because there are so many highly educated scientific people here that may know there logic behind it. But I came across this thread, so I think this will not be the proper time to ask all this, when such a great thread is present.


All the posters posted replies in this thread is not present at this moment, so the thread is absolutely new for today to respond to.


Some Quotes from 0Tavern I spotted as superb and crucial in this thread from post no#14 is as below (actually read only two pages from starting)

How could energy itself, a non-conscious entity, "transcend" the material causal sequence, look ahead to the need for "preserving" and improving forms of life if these are to survive, then begin to "order" the genetic material, the "sticks" in meaningful causal, highly complex ways, ways guaranteed to result in reproduction and survival?

Could simple energy on its own have carried out such a sequence of events? How could energy or matter have foresight to build into complex life forms the need for self-replication except for the purpose of keeping those forms going? Yet why would matter have a stake in keeping certain forms going? Why not, as in all other instances of inorganic matter, simply have formation -> deformation instead of reproduction?

I would simply say WOW. This point is crucial as per me and I would like to know does really a unconscious Energy or Matter can create such type causal sequence like that of "willful deed".


Though I have several God philosophies I would post here some day as an effort to prove that there is a God.


The similar type of thread for proving that "there is no God" also been created at the same time by Scott Sir is also very good and is given as a link in first post.


Nonetheless, I would like to read the responses from members who is active nowadays.


Thank you, Okisites.

I think this thread is great, thus bringing forward. And I am impressed with OTavern and every other members logical responses.


Well I thought about posting a similar kind of kind thread but asking for something different, that is asking a slightly different but similar question but seeking to know about how the Scientist claim that there is no God. What is there theory and proof for that, because there are so many highly educated scientific people here that may know there logic behind it. But I came across this thread, so I think this will not be the proper time to ask all this, when such a great thread is present.


All the posters posted replies in this thread is not present at this moment, so the thread is absolutely new for today to respond to.


Some Quotes from 0Tavern I spotted as superb and crucial in this thread from post no#14 is as below (actually read only two pages from starting)



(Nested quote removed.)



I would simply say WOW. This point is crucial as per me and I would like to know does really a unconscious Energy or Matter can create such type causal sequence like that of "willful deed".


Though I have several God philosophies I would post here some day as an effort to prove that there is a God.


The similar type of thread for proving that "there is no God" also been created at the same time by Scott Sir is also very good and is given as a link in first post.


Nonetheless, I would like to read the responses from members who is active nowadays.


Thank you, Okisites.

Scientists do not claim that there is no God, they claim that there is no evidence for God. Can you see the difference?

Scientists do not claim that there is no God, they claim that there is no evidence for God. Can you see the difference?

Yes, I can see the difference but how can they claim even that? On the basis of what particular theory they claim that?